Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:23749 comp.sys.mac:50912 comp.sys.apple2:262
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!agate!e260-1g!c60a-3hu
From: c60a-3hu@e260-1g.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <1990Mar19.174359.18368@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 90 17:43:59 GMT
References: <1848@crash.cts.com> <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1990Mar17.105403.17776@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> <2595@unocss.unomaha.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: c60a-3hu@e260-1g (Calvin Cheng)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 62

In article <2595@unocss.unomaha.edu> dent@unocss.unomaha.edu (dent) writes:
>
>I've been an Apple fan ever since the ][+ (which is still running fine, thank
>you, with the expansion chasis, Rana drives, etc etc etc etc... :-), and I'm
>a Mac-lover now.  So, all of this discussion got me thinking (look out).
>
So did I and I have been a IIGS user too thot I'm now a Mac user.

>The Apple // -vs- Mac debate (war?) has been going on for a very long time,
>and it seems that by doing next-to-nothing to "finalize" the outcome of that
>battle, Apple may have stumbled across the solution to it all.  Let me
>elaborate:
>
>The appeal of the Mac, (at least back in 1984, when Apple had DAMN GREAT ads..
>[anyone got 1984 on VHS, btw?] :-) is not (at first), the hardware, but the
>user interface.  In fact, the Macintosh User Interface has had such a huge
>impact on the entire industry (by virtue of actually being sucsessful
>at it), that nearly all of the functionality of it has been copied to other,
>
It's important to look at what they are trying to sell in a machine rather
than the hardware alone viz-a-viz. That's why Commodore isn't doing as well
as it should.

>The 68xxx series Mac is not going to last forever, and it's no secret that
>Apple has been playing with the idea of an 88000-based machine.  This new
>machine does not, however, mean that the users of the old machine will be
>abandoned.  The Mac /Interface/ can run on /any/ architecture.  Sure, 
>assembly language programmers will be a little upset :-), but C and Pascal
>programmers should be able to just link with a new library, tweak a little,

This clearly marks the point. No single machine is going to survive for a
long period. Not the 680x0 nor the 658xx. We must open ourselves to new
architectures as and when they come. That's what people in the mini/mainframe
and now workstation market have been doing for years. It's about time the
same thing happen for the mass market, "low-technology" personal computer
market.

>The entire point of this rambling article is that the "Macintosh" is really
>more than simply the hardware by the same name that does the work.  (Kind
>of like "AppleTalk", huh?)  Steve Jobs was correct in a sense when he talked
>of the impending doom of the Mac.  Sure, the 68000-based Mac is eventually
>going to be ancient technology (how many new 6502-based machines do you see
>today? :-)  But the essence (look&feel if you like) of the Macintosh will
>outlive it's 68000-based "body" (I can't beleive I'm talking about Meta-
>Physical Macintoshes here.. :-)
>
The name game is totally irrelevant. How would you compare a PC to a PS/2?
What if they chose to call the Mac II by some other name (or maybe even
an Apple II) or the IIGS a Mac? It's entirely possible. But u still have the
same machine in front of u! Why that rambling about names?
>
>This is *NOT* going to happen overnight, however. :-)  The current state of
>programming on the Mac seems to be filled with minor inconsistencies that

Apple sure has lots of creb to beat up... they've partially dug a grave for
themselves when they tore down all the great aspects of the Lisa to produce
the Mac. It takes time...

The essense of this all is that the debate that has been rambling on is
really quite senseless like the bloodshed in Northen Ireland, Lebanon  or
Sri Lanka. People can't get along just because they try their best to
make themselves feel different when they are very similar.